← All Phrases

“Section 142(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 142Section 142(1)15,051 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 142(1) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 142(1)

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court
2,943
citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

Sumati Dayal v. CIT
214 ITR 801 · 1995 · Supreme Court
1,967
citing judgments

The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,673
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another
118 ITR 461 · 1997 · Supreme Court
1,656
citing judgments

Appealing a tax assessment requires more than just filing the appeal; it involves actively pursuing it. The assessee must effectively engage with the appellate process.

CIT v. Durga Prasad More
82 ITR 540 · 1971 · Supreme Court
1,579
citing judgments

Tax authorities must judge evidence using the test of human probabilities and consider the apparent as real until there are reasons to believe it is not. They can rely on circumstantial evidence and the preponderance of probabilities to determine the genuineness of transactions.

Judgments citing Section 142(1)

Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department vs. Navinchandra Veljibhai Shahq, Jamnagar

In the result, the appellant's appeal is partly allowed

ITA 401/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.401/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) The Income Tax Officer, Wd – Vs. Navinchandra Veljibhai Shah 1(3), Income Tax Department, Ramesh Stores Samkrit Building, Room No. 209, Aayakar Bhavan, Street No. 11, Kamdar Colony Jamnagar – 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Basps6529R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2025 Dates Of Pronouncement : 09/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 44ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN

Pankajkumar Manilal Kalariya, Morbi vs. Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 359/RJT/2024[201415]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Oct 2025

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.359/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankajkumar Manilal Principal Commissioner Of Kalariya बनाम Income-Tax-1, Rajkot, Aaykar Shiv Park Society, Kenal Road, Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, /Vs. Morbi– 363 641 Rajkot – 360 001 "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं . / Pan/Gir No.: Bsqpk0006D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Smt. Pallavi, Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Smt. Pallavi, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 263

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,राजकोट "यायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Gaya vs. Pawan Kumar Singh, Rohtas

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 66/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2016-17 Ito, Ward-3(1), Gaya…………..…………....…….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Pawan Kumar Singh…………..…..………………….....……...…..…..Respondent C/O Vidhayanchal Singh, Tarhangla, Dehri-On-Sone, Bihar – 821307. [Pan: Aqsps7942P] Appearances By: Shri Anuj Ganguli, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 09, 2025 Order Per Madhumita Roy: The Instant Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.01.2025 Passed By Nfac U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 44Section 44ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH-PATNA VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member and Shri

Shakuntla Devi, Muzaffarpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Muzaffarpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 163/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member), Shri Rakesh Mishra (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH-PATNA VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member and

Md Iftakhar Alam, Araria vs. ITO, Purnea

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 389/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194HSection 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH AT KOLKATA [Virtual Court] Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH

Kanhaiya Krushi Kendra, Yavatmal vs. ITO Ward -1, Yavatmal

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 427/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalekanhaiya Krushi Kendra Main Bazar Line, Fulsa Wangi Mahagaon Dist. ……………. Appellant Yavatmal-445001, Maharashtra. Pan – Aaofk4226A V/S Income Tax Officer Ward–1, ……………. Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Yavatmal-445001, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shriabhishek Kumar, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: ShriAbhishek Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 234ASection 68

opening of assessment and the same was disposed off by the Assessing Officer on 21/12/2021. In compliance to the notice under section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee has submitted computation of income, audited report, bank statement and produced cash book. Whereas, the Assessing Officer has observed that

Nitu Khadariya, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Ncrb Building

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1360/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 69A

1 SMT. NITU KHADARIYIA VS ITO,WARD 1(3), JAIPUR आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Bhawani Developers, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-4(1), Lucknow-New

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid

ITA 253/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 68

I.T.A. No.253/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH 'A', LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT

Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2)(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Sonaben Anilkumar Variya, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1677/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 Ito, Ward-3(2)(1) Sonaben Anilkumar Variya Ahmedabad. Arhum Elegans Aec Cross Road City Naranpura Vistar So Ahmedabad. Pan : Amwpv 5380 Q (Applicant) (Responent) : None Assessee By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09 /10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 2(47)

Though the last notice was duly served on 27.12.2022, no compliance was made by the assessee. Further statutory notices under section 142(1), general show cause notice under section 144 and centralized communications were also issued from time to time, but no response was forthcoming from the assessee

Parikh Amitkumar Mahendrabhai, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with the above directions

ITA 1199/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Parikh Amitkumar Mahendrabhai The Dcit 6, Alaknanda Society Circle 1(1)(1) Sama, Vadodara 390 008. Vadodara. Pan : Acppp 2527 G (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Pate, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Pate, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr.DR
Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 271(1)(b)Section 54

CASS. A notice under section 2 143(2) was issued on 19.09.2016 to which the assessee sought adjournment on 26.09.2016. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) along with a detailed questionnaire was issued on 11.01.2017 fixing the hearing on 23.01.2017. Subsequently, another notice under section 142(1) read with section ... Assessing Officer recorded that neither the assessee nor his authorised representative attended or furnished submissions in response. A further notice under section 142(1) dated 27.10.2017, along with show cause for initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(b), fixed the hearing on 07.11.2017. On that occasion, the authorised representative

Bajaj Housing Finance Limited, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-8(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1608/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Respondent: Appellant by Shri Nikhil Mutha
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 270A(9)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1608/PUN/2025

Anandarao Kota, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 238/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.238/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2015-16) Shri Anandarao Kota, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad. Ward 9(1), Pan: Cvopk0669Q Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: None. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश/Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 27.07.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is That The Assessee Is An Individual, No Regular Return Of Income U/S.139 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Was Filed For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessing Officer Based On The Information That The Assessee Made Cash Deposits Of Rs.1,03,97,300/- In The Savings Bank Account Formed Opinion That The Income Had Escaped Assessment

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 282(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SMC’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Achala Punja, Teynampet vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Non Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1483/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. R. M. Narayanan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl. C.I.T
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 54

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एबी ट

Zahir Hussain, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Cir-9(5), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 52/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.52/Chny/2019 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Abitha Banu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar
Section 143(3)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी यस यस िव"ने

Mavalli Mosque Association, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 436/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri G. Venkatesh
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

Belegara Halli Nanjamari, Tiptur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tiptur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 222/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Gokul, AdvocateFor Respondent: Advocate - Standing
Section 142(1)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

Kanigere Ramegowda Ningaraju, Hassan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Hassan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1046/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Years : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri V Shivarama Iyer, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263Section 269SSection 45

interest of the revenue. From the material placed before us, it is evident that the Assessing Officer issued detailed notices under section 142(1) and also under section 148A(b) of the Act, specifically calling upon the assessee to explain the source of cash deposits. The assessee filed detailed written

Amit Banthia, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2325/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri K.R Pradeep, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ballusamy N, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 292CSection 69

before us filed the synopsis of the arguments supported by various materials including the purchase bills, notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act, the replies made by the assessee in the statement recorded, copies of the capital account and the balance sheet and income tax returns

Chandulal Banthia, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2324/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri K.R Pradeep, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ballusamy N, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 292CSection 69

before us filed the synopsis of the arguments supported by various materials including the purchase bills, notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act, the replies made by the assessee in the statement recorded, copies of the capital account and the balance sheet and income tax returns

National Payments Corporation of India, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemptions), Mumbai

ITA 3652/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Respondent: Shri Niraj Sheth a/w
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT